Survival of the fittest vs. compassionate Christianity

psy-ops

psy-ops

Joined
Sep 27, 1999
Messages
3,164
I am curious....sometimes I fluctuate between these 2 concepts.

I believe that Christ's main message was compassion for all. So for Christians I think it is mandatory to help others less fortunate even during a time of crisis.In Buddhism as well is about helping others. I try to live this.

Then there are times I get frustrated and believe in the live and let die if you can't hack it then nature will weed you out.

I usually help people but sometimes you just have to let nature take its course.


Does anyone else bounce between these 2 concepts?
 
Oh yes indeed, plus if I chuck in a bit of an idea about Karma then I end up truly dazed and confused .
In the end I reckon there probably isn't one way to deal with it all , just a blend of many way's .
Hope this makes sense .
Paul.
 
I guess you can't help everybody.

so you help the ones you can and let nature take care of the rest.
 
Aw man, a philosophical discussion...

My $.02

Just be, and do the right thing as often as you can.

It has worked so far.
 
I'm not up on the bible, but didn't Christ also say pick up the sword to protect what's yours?
 
I believe there's also a sig line on BFC that says something to the effect,"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those that didn't."

Also isn't there something in there about selling your cloak to get up the moola for a sword if you don't already own one?????

Larry S.
 
I have weighed the morality of helping vs. letting be many times. I really think it comes down to whether or not you really can help and not throw away your efforts in the process.

For example, I know a man who has a brother in impending financial doom. The brother got there by himself through a series of swindles and inactions. Of course the brother wants help, but repeatedly cheats and slanders the man.

Both are involved in a religion that is deeply "take care of your own," so the man wants to help his brother, even at some legal risk.

The problem I see with this is that the two men have operated this way since childhood - little brother gets in trouble, big brother bails him out.

Is there any likelihood of brother's behavior changing? I think not. In fact, it has gotten worse over the years, arguably enabled by "helpful" intervention.

It has now culminated in an episode in which the younger brother stands to lose his home, or at least live the rest of his life in a debtor's misery. I wonder if continued assistance will help, or just escalate the process again.

For me, there are times when you can help, and times when you can help more by not assisting at all. I personally feel that bailing out this brother only weakens him to sin, and that he needs a healthy dose of reality so he might instead stop his transgressions and begin to live like the rest of us do.

(cold-hearted) Scott
 
I think that you can't really compare the two. As you have it, Compassionate Christianity is a moral system, while survival of the fittest isn't a system at all, but rather a mechanism. So, it would be better to put something liek Christianity up against some other system and test it using survival of the fittest.

e.g.: Compassionate Christianity vs. Mahayana Buddism.

Or you could look within religions, and go for "Compassionate Christianity" versus "Medieval, Crusading Christianity." With this one, you can see that the compassionate christianity has had a stronger "run" over the last 2k years than the medieval "Ahh, aren't I a nice christian... hey, let's go crusading and wipe out some towns, rape the women and sing soem songs!" Yes, I am generalizing quite a bit, but you get my drift here.

On a sort of related note, my quick and dirty interpretation of the Christianity that Jesus advocated was of the compassionate, pacifist, turn the other cheek variety. Sure you can chase gamblers off of the steps of your temples, but you can't kill them. Even the two quotes often seen in signature lines here where Jesus seems to tell people to buy swords I believe are sarchasm, or something of that sort. The trouble with that form of Christianity is that it does leave you physically vulnerable in the real word we live in. If someone breaks into your house, you aren't supposed to blast them with a shotgun, but instead show them where the valuables are. Spiritually that "system" may work well, but given that we are physical beings that live in this material world, I think that very very very few of us can live like that if we really decided to. What is mor ein line with Jesus' message: having our 2 cars, a computer, $600 custom bowies, etc, or selling all of that stuff and giving the money to the poor so they can eat and get medicine? Trouble is, we want things like computers and cars. And we also think that there is nothing wrong with having a car or using a computer (for the most part.) And that's where you get the "revised" forms of christianity that we have today. I'm sure it took only a few weeks before some of the early christians started to think this way.

Anyways, sorry for the tangent! By the way, though, this should probably be in the community section somewhere. Unless you are asking what kind of hatchet Jesus would use to prepare some wood for Joseph to build a chair out of, in which case I'd say he'd buy a Gransfors Bruks Wildlife Hatchet. They sure look nice!
 
I still love those old T-shirts...."Kill em all and let God sort them out" and that classic "yeah thou I walk through the valley of the shaddow of death, I feel know evil, cos i'm the meanest SOB in the valley". The world,in my opinion would be a damm fine place without religion.90% of the worlds **** has been caused by belief born from relgion and the other 10% .............$$$$$$.OK the Buddhists are close but I would have to go with Nature on this one ( or Mel Gibbson in Leathal Weapon.... God hate's me so I just hate him back.
If the big guy is around upstairs I think he's either one sick puppy or has a lot of wide open space, where as downstairs must be full to the rim.
I dont wish to offend the beliver's out there, but the concept of religion goes back there along with the boggie man,fear and retribution and all that other crap that was dreamt up to keep the masses it check.
 
lots of good debates

crayola, I think it belongs here because, these are survivalist ideologies I am questioning.

for instance, IN A CRISIS,(as stated in original post) Do you help your neighbors or let them bang on your door till they die or leave?

I find there are 2 types of survivalist those who care for their others and those who say if they haven't figured it out by now screw'em!

I am not talking about self defense or helping out a habitual criminal. I think those are clear cut situations. if you have to protect yourself do it at all costs. if you are aiding in someone's crime then totally refuse to help. those are NO BRAINERS to my eye.


but in a crisis you have to decide someone's life in a moments notice.
 
take the west nile virus for instance.

I think it is good to have nature weed out some people. then I think is this an immoral attitude?

survival of the fittest the strong survive the virus the weak die.

compassion says figure out a cure! stay indoors!
 
Oh, in a crisis situation... that is interesting to think about! Do I share the cans of food I have stored away with my neighbor after the tornado tears into our homes? Good stuff to think about.

Let me ask you this though, even if you just want to think about it and not respond at all.

given that there are people out there who are living in a survival situation every day (the starving children we see on newsflashes all the time), how do you rationalize having a nice computer, 2 cars, bowie nives, and the like? I'm not asking this sarcastically, it is a genuie question. I think about it often, and I even wrote a paper about it sometime. Do we say, "Screw em, they have to learn to survive", or do we say that we should share our wealth with them, sell our cars and buy bus passes?

Thanks for posting the original question, it has given me things to think about.
 
My personal philosophy: First and foremost, in any disaster-type situation, assure you and your family are "taken care of" and squared-away before contemplating charity. Subsequently, wisely "give until it hurts a bit" and you've done right in my book.

Keep in mind, the sheer number of variables and scenarios defy any hard-and-fast rules with respect to balancing self-survival and charity--you can only make the calls whence "on the spot"...
 
Sorry, I guess I misread the post earlier.

I think it is smarter from both perspectives (Christian/religious and Darwinist) to help others and thus amalgamate a group with a common purpose. You can help them at some cost to your own resources, but they can return the favor later.

If they are thieves, beat them off, but otherwise enlarge and strengthen your group as quickly as possible. Build a pack, then a tribe, then a community. This is the only strtegy that makes sense to me, given the large assortment of difficult tasks facing people in a hypothetical complete breakdown of society.

Scott
 
Christian theology and philosophy has a lot of cool takes on this topic.

1. Any man who fails to care for his family is worse than an infidel.
2. Don't worry about clothing and food, because if God will dress the wild lily more beautifully than a king, and it will wilt after just one day, how much more will He care for those who are close to His heart.
3. There are definite times when you are better off by selling your cloak to buy a sword...
4. ...and sometimes you are to turn the other cheek.

For item #1, your primary responsibility is to maintain your relationship with God, because that is eternal. Then maintain your marriage, because it is for life. Then take care of your kids, because they have been entrusted to you by God Himself.

#2 tells us that in all circumstances we have the Creator to take care of us - if we entrust ourselves to Him. Take the modern missionary who walks into a tribe of hostile cannibals - with no weapons or means of self-defense. My uncle did this, and ended up raising his children amongst the tribe in total safety, even though the group that went in to the tribe before him had been eaten. He trusted God with his very life.

#3 implies that there are times when you should defend yourself. And warfare is not outlawed by biblical teachings, so there you have a viable cause for 'strapping on the sword.'

#4 applies mostly to religious persecution. If someone attacks me for being a Christian, it is actually Christ who they hate, not me. I am to take the bruises, wounds, and even death, if need be. "To live is Christ, and to die is gain." For the Christian, death is not death - it is a portal to a new beginning and everlasting life.

The discussion can obviously go on. As I imagine things to be, I would defend myself against marauding bands, but I would be kind and generous to those in need (except for the marauding bands). If my supplies run out, God can feed me just like He feeds the birds, who neither plow nor harvest to get their food. If the marauding band attacks me because of my faith, I would give myself to them peacefully and willingly take the consequences. This is my response as based on scriptures. I've never been put to such a fiery trial, and reality can make people behave differently than they ever imagined.
 
Originally posted by chrisaloia
I am curious....sometimes I fluctuate between these 2 concepts.

Then there are times I get frustrated and believe in the live and let die if you can't hack it then nature will weed you out.
Click to expand...

I think this says it all: when you're having negative feelings, the Darwinist takes over, and the Christian gets locked away for that time. If the result of bad feelings is, "Aw, f*ck it," then we've given up our values for convenience. It happens to all of us at some point -- otherwise we wouldn't be lowly human sinners!

I guess as a Christian it's a matter of staying open to God's Word and His Will, and knowing what part you play in His plan at any given time.

I also think of Winston Churchill's saying (paraphrase): "The true measure of a man is not what he does when things are going well, but what he does when things are going badly." We all too often have the tendency to abandon our morals and principles for convenience or when times get tough.

Peace,

Brian.
 
Thanks Brian for pointing out that fact about myself and alot of other lowly sinners.

believe it or not I never thought I resort to my "survival of the fittest" attitude when I am frustrated though I wrote it myself. that says a lot there.

Crayola, your question is even more difficult than mine. my only solution which I practice is I donate alot of excess stuff I will never use even if it is hi-quality to the poor or otherwise unfortunate. other than that I have no other solution. great question though:D

Beezaur, I think you are totally correct it is our best interests to help the community.

guncollector, brings up an important issue to take care of family first than others. kind of like the oxygen mask on a plane theory.
 
There isn't a lot of real conflict here unless one takes survival to be an "all or nothing" concept. If you are determined to survive no matter how severe the challenge, how broad, and what you might have to do to accomplish it - like shoot those who come calling for help and eat them - then you are surviving as an animal, but have otherwise surrendered your humanity.

I'm going to prepare for myself, my family, and perhaps to render aid to others near by. If the disaster is so widespread that I have to kill my neighbors to survive (and that's other than to defend my family), then maybe I've found the point at which I'm willing to die rather than take that next step. The darwinistic argument really doesn't hold water since no matter what the disaster (unless its a giant meteor hitting the planet or something) there will always be human groups in other parts of the world that survive to repopulate the globe.
 
Originally posted by chrisaloia
Thanks Brian for pointing out that fact about myself and alot of other lowly sinners.

Click to expand...

I was most certainly including myself in what I wrote, too (which is why I wrote "we") -- please don't leave me out of the club! What you wrote is how I've felt on numerous occasions, too, when it gets tough. What I commented on is the goal of getting better at not saying, "the heck with it," -- a goal I still fall short of far too often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top